SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD et al vs. CLORIBEL
The inadvertence of Santiago's use of words can't be used as a
FACTS:
First Contempt case:
The Supreme Court rendered a decision against MacArthur
International Minerals
Corp and in their third Motion for Reconsideration, Attys. Vicente Santiago
and John Beltran
Sotto made use of language that are disrespectful and contemptuous to the
Court like "it seems many of our judicial authorities believe they are chosen
messengers of God", "corrupt in its face" and insinuating favoritism and
partisanship of the members of the Court, notable Chief Justice Concepcion
and Justice Castro due to alleged interest in the case (Castro's brother
works for one of the parties). Santiago and Castro wanted for the two
justices to inhibit themselves in the MR. The Court demanded for Santiago
and Sotto to show cause why they shouldn't be cited in contempt for the said
statements. Santiago insisted that the statements he made were
inadvertently included in the copy sent to the Court, and was just intended
to be in the MR's rough draft.
Second Contempt case:
Counsel for MacArthur drafted a fourth motion for reconsideration,
this time with Atty. Juanito M. Caling as counsel, and again contained
language which the Court found disrespectful. The MR assailed the decision
penned by CJ Concepcion since he was out of town when the decision was
written and included seeming threats of elevating the issue to the World
Court and allegations of rise of graft and corruption in the judiciary. The
Court demanded Caling to also show cause and he said that the motion was
already prepared by Santiago when he took the case as was verified by
Morton Meads, an employee from MacArthur.
ISSUE: Whether the lawyers should be cited in contempt?
HELD:
1st case:
Yes. The language employed by Santiago and Sotto degrades the
administration of justice which transgresses Section 3 (d) of Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court as well as Sec. 20 (f) of Rule 138 of the RoC which states that
"a lawyer's language should be dignified in keeping with the dignity of the
legal profession". They are also expected to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers but their acts
resulted in the contrary and are intended to create an atmosphere of
distrust.
shield to absolve him of any misdeeds.
2nd case:
Yes. Even if the idea of the language used in the 4th MR came from
Meads, both Santiago and Caling should've adhered to Canon 16 of the Code
of Legal Ethics wherein "a lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and
to prevent his clients from doing those things which a lawyer himself ought
not to do, particularly with reference to their conduct towards courts,
judicial officers, jurors, witnesses and suitors. If a client persists in such
wrongdoing, the lawyer should have terminated their relation". Santiago is
also liable here since Caling's representation didn't divest him of his
capacity as counsel for MacArthur.
IN RE ALMACEN G.R. NO. L-27654 (IN THE MATTER OF
PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY.
VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN VS. VIRGINIA YAPTINCHAY)
Topics: Practice of law is a privilege which cannot be taken away by anyone
or anything except through unlawful grounds. / Limitation of lawyers duty
to clients. / Winning or losing a case is a fact in a lawyers job. His prime
duty is the speedy administration of justice.
Facts of the Case:
Atty. Almacen was the counsel of Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They
lost in a civil case but Almacen filed for a Motion for Reconsideration. He
notified the opposing party of said motion but failed to indicate the time and
place of hearing of said motion.
He appealed to the Court of Appeals but motion was denied. He filed an
appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his
appeal in a minute resolution.
Atty. Almacen called such minute resolution as unconstitutional. He filed
before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyers certificate as
he claimed that it was useless to continue practicing his profession when
members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice,
who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit
culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity.
He argues that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay
P120,000.00 without knowing the reasons why and that his client became
one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy.
He also contends that justice as administered by the present members of the
Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb. The Supreme
Court did not immediately act on Almacens petition as the Court wanted to
wait for Almacen to actually surrender his certificate. Almacen, however, did
not surrender his lawyers certificate though he now argues that he chose
not to.
Issue:
Does Almacen deserve disciplinary action?
Court Ruling:
YES. In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that minute resolutions are
needed because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full
opinion for every petition they reject. The Supreme Court must decide only
on cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate
importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved.
The Supreme Court regarded Almacens criticisms as uncalled for. His right
to criticize the decision of the courts has always been encouraged, but it
shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the wall of decency and propriety.
JOSE M. CASTILLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SABINO PADILLA, JR.,
RESPONDENT.
JOSE M. CASTILLO FOR COMPLAINANT.
ANSELMO M. CARLOS FOR RESPONDENT.
SYLLABUS
1. JUDICIAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; DUTIES. Among the duties of an
attorney are: (1) to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of
justice; and (2) to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no
fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. The Canons of
Professional Ethics likewise exhort lawyers to avoid all personalities
between counsel.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; USE OF INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE UNCALLED FOR IN
THE CASE AT BAR; PENALTY. Whether directed at the person of
complainant or his manner of offering evidence, the remark "bobo" or "Ay,
que bobo" was offensive and uncalled for. Respondent had no right to
interrupt complainant which such cutting remark while the latter was
addressing the court. In so doing, he exhibited lack of respect not only to a
fellow lawyer but also to the court. By the use of intemperate language,
respondent failed to measure up to the norm of conduct required of a
member of the legal profession, which all the more deserves reproach
because this is not the first time that respondent has employed offensive
language in the course of judicial proceedings. He has previously been
admonished to refrain from engaging in offensive personalities and warned
to be more circumspect in the preparation of his pleadings. Respondent is
hereby reprimanded for his misbehavior. He is directed to observe proper
decorum and restraint and warned that a repetition of the offense will be
dealt with more severely.
RESOLUTION
PLANA, J p:
Atty. Jose M. Castillo, complainant, seeks the suspension of respondent from
the practice of law for the use of insulting language in the course of judicial
proceedings. prcd
As the material facts are not in dispute, we have deemed the case
submitted for resolution on the basis of the pleadings of the parties.
Complainant was the counsel for the defendants (and at the same
time, one of the defendants) in Criminal Case No. 13331 for forcible entry
before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan. Respondent was counsel for
the plaintiff. At the hearing of the case on November 19, 1981, while
complainant was formally offering his evidence, he heard respondent say
"bobo". When complainant turned toward respondent, he saw the latter
looking at him (complainant) menacingly. Embarrassed and humiliated in the
presence of many people, complainant was unable to proceed with his offer
of evidence. The court proceedings had to be suspended.
While admitting the utterance, respondent denied having directed the
same at the complainant, claiming that what he said was "Ay, que bobo",
referring to "the manner complainant was trying to inject wholly irrelevant
and highly offensive matters into the record" while in the process of making
an offer of evidence. The statement of Atty. Castillo referred to by
respondent was:
". . . The only reason why Atty. Jose Castillo was included in the
present complaint for ejectment was because defendant Erlinda Castillo wife
of this representation called up this representation at his house and crying
over the phone, claiming that Atty. Sabino Padilla was harassing her and
immediately, this representation like any good husband would do in the
defense of his wife immediately went to the school and confronted Atty.
Sabino Padilla, Jr. with a talk and asked for a yes or no answer if he harassed
the wife of this representation and if yes, right then and there l would sock
his face."
Among the duties of an attorney are: (1) to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts of justice; and (2) to abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a
party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is
charged. (Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 20 (b) and (f). The Canons of
Professional Ethics likewise exhort lawyers to avoid all personalities
between counsel. (Canon 17.)
Whether directed at the person of complainant or his manner of offering
evidence, the remark "bobo" or "Ay, que bobo" was offensive and uncalled
for. Respondent had no right to interrupt complainant which such cutting
remark while the latter was addressing the court. In so doing, he exhibited
lack of respect not only to a fellow lawyer but also to the court. By the use of
intemperate language, respondent failed to measure up to the norm of
conduct required of a member of the legal profession, which all the more
deserves reproach because this is not the first time that respondent has
employed offensive language in the course of judicial proceedings. He has
previously been admonished to refrain from engaging in offensive
personalities and warned to be more circumspect in the preparation of his
pleadings. (CA-G.R. No. 09753-SP, Court of Appeals; Civil Case No. C-7790
CFI of Caloocan.)
The Court, however, notes that in the case at bar, respondent's actuation
was triggered by complainant's own manifest hostility and provocative
remarks. Complainant is therefore not entirely free from blame when
respondent unleashed his irritation through the use of improper words.
WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby reprimanded for his misbehavior. He is
directed to observe proper decorum and restraint and warned that a
repetition of the offense will be dealt with more severely. LLjur